New Yorker reporter Ryan Lizza caused a bit of a stir in the conservative media world today in a report he filed for the New Yorker about the ongoing debate in the U.S. Senate over an immigration bill that is currently opposed by many conservatives. According to the piece, the so-called Gang of Eight see the role of Florida Republican Marco Rubio as being to “neutralize” conservative talk radio and to get opinion hosts on Fox News Channel to either talk up the legislation or at least not oppose it.

In their view, Rubio, who was initially touted by many conservatives nationally as their great hope even though he was regarded far more skeptically by Florida conservatives, has succeeded in his assignment.

Really? Has Rubio succeeded in neutralizing you? I warned everyone about Rubio from the beginning. He’s an opportunist who will believe in whatever it is that will advance his career. In other words, he believes in nothing.

Michelle, always hits it out of the park! Michelle,& Tammy are my favorites, but even Coulter is on the right side of this issue.
I know we’re not supposed to “hate”. That might be my biggest struggle, with people who have no regard for this country, or the people who live here.

I hope Col West would not waste his time with that and put his efforts into something else that would help the Conservative cause. Btw I think Senator Rubio knows which side his bread is buttered on. But always good to remind him as long as it is done in a constructive manner…

I value Hannity’s comments on this. He says he’s read the bill, and doesn’t see where the border enforcement is. That’s troubling, though if I remember correctly, in the interview Hannity had with Rubio on this same show he talked about amendments that were going to be added to the bill that demand securing the border first. Perhaps that’ll mean something, but I think we need to be against the bill until we can see that they’re taking border enforcement seriously.

Unlike Michelle, I don’t mind the idea of “secure the border first.” I like the idea of a path to citizenship for these people, because I don’t think there’s any way we’re going to deport all of them. The reality is they’re here. We’ve got to do something with them in a civil way. What I don’t want to see happen, as Michelle said, is for us to go through this thing again of, “Oh sure. We’ll secure the border…someday,” convert illegals to legal status, and the border security never happens. I say no legalization without securing the border first.

It’s not about trying to “keep the brown people out.” That’s an illusion. They’re here already. It’s not (for me) about trying to keep jobs for Americans. I think what conservatives need to emphasize with this is it’s about combating international criminal gang activity. It’s more than drugs, and it’s more than them trafficking in illegals. There’s also de facto slave/sex trade, and kidnapping going on with these gangs. We’ve had incursions by the Mexican military, which has been infiltrated by these gangs, coming across our border, protecting gang traffic. These are not mere street gangs. They’ve threatened the very stability of Mexico’s government, and from what I’ve read, the Mexican gov’t has been accommodating them, because it sees no other choice. The people who live along the border know what I’m talking about. When Michelle talks about “securing the states against invasion,” I don’t think she’s being hyperbolic. This is the reason the border needs to be secured.